Feminist Frequency needs a fact check?

[Dastardly]

Firstly, to prove that someone committed rape you actually have to prove that they knew their victim did not consent at the time the offence occurred. The only difference in recent years is that many countries have inserted the extra caveat that this belief must be reasonable.

Just because something is difficult to prove doesn't mean we should do away with requiring it. First degree murder requires that we prove premeditation, which is incredibly difficult to prove, but we still try.

Secondly, the burden of proof you're describing is almost impossible to reach. There is no forensic test which can tell the difference between injuries sustained during violent consensual sex and rape.

The forensic evidence is only to prove there has been sexual contact. That doesn't, in and of itself, prove rape. It can contribute to a rape case, particularly if the defendant has denied having sex with (or even knowing) the victim. But no one seriously believes such forensic evidence alone is proof of rape.

So actually, there's a flip-side to what you're saying, which is that we cannot possibly assume that a verdict of not-guilty in a rape trial means that the victim has not been raped or that the accused was not responsible. Not-guilty does not mean innocent, it means that there is insufficient evidence to convict. That's another distinction which certain members of the public routinely seem to forget.

Actually, it means we must assume exactly that. If someone is found "not guilty," and yet we can treat them all as though they're guilty, we're clearly not interested in justice at all. We might claim that it's "easy" to tell the ones who were actually innocent from the ones that got off on technicalities, but who is ever going to publicly defend the "dirty rapist?"

The fact is that, in such cases, we feel better assuming guilt. The legal system might appear more likely to release the guilty, but the public is far more likely to condemn the innocent. For one, it allows us to close the matter -- the offender was caught, so we're done. Additionally, it prevents us from having to express doubt in the victim's judgment (or honesty, if it seems there's lying afoot).

Frankly, a lot of men who take this position are defending rapists, not directly of course, but by seeking to minimize the crime and to suggest that it's somehow not as big an issue as all these nasty irrational women are claiming.

I'm not seeing that anywhere. Rape is awful, and rape should draw very harsh punishments. I don't hear anyone arguing that. I do, however, hear a lot of people reminding us that rape trials are about establishing whether or not there was a rape and whether or not it was perpetrated by the defendant.

The hysterical focus on a very, very small number of "malicious" allegations, and the consequent fear of them in the courts system and particularly among the police, is a good example. I'm not saying that these things don't happen, just that many people seem to have got the impression that they happen a lot.

All it takes for a guy is to see one case in which a woman maliciously accused, or even just mistakenly accuse a man and ruin his life very publicly -- that's enough to make a guy wary of such things, lest someone should ever try it on him. Why? Because the guy knows a) that he's not a rapist, and b) that he's unlikely to get raped, so those aren't on his list of concerns... which means he's more apt to focus on the only potential threat left on that list.

I don't worry about ovarian cancer half as much as I worry about prostate cancer, because the latter is more likely to actually happen to me.

For the first time in decades, allegations of a very serious crime which is unfortunately very common in our society are now relatively close to being taken seriously. I really have no sympathy for anyone who finds that threatening or scary.

But you're ascribing malicious intent to these guys. They're not threatened that people are taking rape seriously. Find me one person who honestly believes rape is no big deal. The idea that an accusation is as good to the public as a conviction -- that's the perceived problem, I think.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Actually, it means we must assume exactly that. If someone is found "not guilty," and yet we can treat them all as though they're guilty, we're clearly not interested in justice at all. We might claim that it's "easy" to tell the ones who were actually innocent from the ones that got off on technicalities, but who is ever going to publicly defend the "dirty rapist?"

Okay, let's take the other side of this for a second.

A woman is raped by someone she knows. She bravely comes forward to the police, presses charges and goes through the harrowing ordeal of taking this person to court and, in the end, there is insufficient evidence to convict. Under your reasoning, since the person in question has been found to be innocent, the legal system has no right to place further restrictions on his contact with his alleged victim.. after all he's innocent.

Except that he may well not be. He may, in fact, do exactly the same thing again confident now that is victim will not come forward this time because if she did then the police would simply assume she is lying. After all, she accused an innocent man right! What a monster!

You simply cannot assume that someone who has been acquitted of rape is innocent. They are not innocent, they are simply "not-guilty", meaning that there was not enough evidence to convict them. Noone is suggesting we imprison these people just in case, but it would be just as idiotic to simply be forced to assume that because insufficient evidence could be found then nothing happened.

Now, if someone were to write that a person acquitted of rape was definitely guilty and had gotten away with it, that would be defamation and illegal. However, to merely suggest or speculate that someone may be anything other than entirely innocent of all crimes when they have been acquitted is not defamation. It is in fact an entirely accurate assessment of the situation. The flipside of proof beyond all reasonable doubt is that there is no obligation for everyone to accept that a person who has been acquitted must be innocent.

For a crime to even reach court, there must be an investigation which must turn up enough evidence for the police to charge someone with a crime. Crimes do not get to court if there is no evidence that they occurred.

Because the guy knows a) that he's not a rapist, and b) that he's unlikely to get raped, so those aren't on his list of concerns... which means he's more apt to focus on the only potential threat left on that list.

If someone comes forward with a rape allegation, then the only reasonable assumption, even if you believe you have slept with them consensually, is that they honestly believe they have been raped. Now, under the definition of rape your own belief may already render that legally untrue, but that does not mean we can just assume they are lying.

You can of course allege that they are lying or making it up, and such allegations are just as capable of ruining people's lives, particularly in the (extremely likely) event the defendant is acquitted of rape. Maybe you don't care or don't pick up on those cases because you don't have to see those lives as substitutable to your own, but I personally don't see that as an excuse.

See, in my opinion what this always seems to come back to is the presumed right of men to see sex as an entirely no-risk affair. I don't see that as a sustainable position. By penetrating someone's body you are taking responsibility for their consent, and since you willingly took on that responsibility they are perfectly within their rights to allege that you failed. If you are willing to take basic care, this need not be an obstacle.

The idea that an accusation is as good to the public as a conviction -- that's the perceived problem, I think.

I fail to see why this is particular or exceptional to this crime, except that the perpetrators (and alleged perpetrators) this crime happen to predominantly have penises, which seems to buy a peculiar brand of loyalty from other people with penises.

If I am responsible for managing someone's finances and they accuse me of embezzling their money, some members of the public may simply assume that I am guilty of fraud because I have been accused of it. This is not a deep social problem, though it may cause personal loss or disadvantage to me. It is a risk we all have to accept in virtually every area of life.

If someone wants to, they can fabricate a malicious allegation against you quite easily. It is already treated as a very serious crime. What more do you want?

 

[Clearing the Eye]

It's a shame that woman has all the warmth of an ice cube, because she's quite pretty. What's the personality version of a butterface?

Wow, a "tits or GTFO" response. Stay classy, Escapist.

Go ahead and show me exactly where I said "tits or GTFO." Any time you're ready. I'm waiting.

 

[Kahunaburger]

It's a shame that woman has all the warmth of an ice cube, because she's quite pretty. What's the personality version of a butterface?

Wow, a "tits or GTFO" response. Stay classy, Escapist.

Go ahead and show me exactly where I said "tits or GTFO." Any time you're ready. I'm waiting.

What you said is essentially a wordier version of "tits or GTFO." They're both boil down to "this woman has an opinion? I can't fap to opinions!"

 

[Clearing the Eye]

It's a shame that woman has all the warmth of an ice cube, because she's quite pretty. What's the personality version of a butterface?

Wow, a "tits or GTFO" response. Stay classy, Escapist.

Go ahead and show me exactly where I said "tits or GTFO." Any time you're ready. I'm waiting.

What you said is essentially a wordier version of "tits or GTFO." They're both boil down to "this woman has an opinion? I can't fap to opinions!"

What? I didn't say anything about her opinions or "fapping." I said she is pretty but her personality grates on me and that's a shame. Heavens forbid I should comment on the appearance and personality of a woman.

Nice knee-jerk, there.

 

[Cobalt180]

While it is indeed true that many females will wish to see the results of their actions bring them higher-paying more luxurious jobs, should be actively ignore that pay is, in most cases, compensatory with the labor involved? That may be a whole other argument, but if feminism now is simply about equal representation in the workforce, in management positions especially, then could this not be seen as a movement akin to a pseudo-affirmative action movement?

Granted, we do not live in a world where hard work and effort pay off consistently based on how much you've put in. I will admit that many men and women alike put in a lot of effort to try to become a manager, or more, but should we deny that in some cases, those positions are not always available? If they wish to see results, then should they not try to work within a system that they say has cheated them, and try to create their own niche?

I would wonder of which feminists we talk about. Those who see females as objectified by the culture, their objective as a group is to resist the use of the female body as selling point, trying to resist an ideal form that they must adhere to. More broad feminism will shift more towards pay and positions, equality in the workforce. By supporting laws that give them equal return, they potentially do harm to themselves, although I didn't see any objection to that in your reply.

I'm actually curious, by "equal returns" what did you mean specifically?